beta
Text
1. The Defendant received, February 12, 2013, from the Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court), as to the real estate stated in the attached list, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and C is the Plaintiff’s wife.
B. On February 12, 2013, C borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant introduced through a bond company. On February 12, 2012, C completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a collateral security”) on the instant real estate by “the maximum amount of claims KRW 45 million, the debtor C, and the Defendant based on the mortgage contract” on February 12, 2012.
C. On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against C with the effect that “C forged the power of attorney, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff, which is necessary for the establishment of the above right to collateral security.” On June 20, 2014, C was charged with the content of “facing private documents, uttering of the aforementioned right to collateral security, false entry in public electronic records, etc.,” and received a summary order of KRW 2 million.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 3, 10, 11, Eul's 1, 4, 6, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Where a third party is involved in the act of disposal rather than by the direct act of disposal of the former registered titleholder, the registration of the former owner shall be presumed lawful, even if the third party is the agent of the former registered titleholder. As such, the former owner, who requested the cancellation of the registration, was not entitled to represent the former owner, i.e., the former owner, who requested the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void.
In light of the above legal principles, there is a reason to suspect that the registration procedure has not run lawfully, such as forging the registration document of the former owner, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009).